On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:57:06AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Till Maas wrote: > >On So Juli 1 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > >>EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think > >>about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project > >>perspective. > > > >Where does a user not see Fedora when he looks at EPEL? Bugs go to the > >"Fedora EPEL" Product on Bugzilla, all documentation is found at > >http://FEDORAproject.org/wiki/EPEL and repoview at > >http://redhat.download.FEDORAproject.org/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/ has the > >title "Fedora EPEL". So are you sure, that a lot of end users are confused > >by README.Fedora files? > > In places where enterprise distributions are used there is typically a > lot of end users running preconfigured locked down systems which might > also have EPEL repository enabled. They wouldn't be reporting bugs or > installing the repository themselves. I can't really be sure about > anyone getting confused at all. The above use case has some flwas. Either the system is locked down in which case the user calls his support to touch anything on the system, or the user is in charge and needs to be aware of the origin and support options of his software. The case above really cries out for using the proper Fedora association. The only one uncomfortable with this could be an OEM preconfiguring EPEL or other third party software on top of RHEL and supposedly selling this as having the same support options as RHEL packages. And you do want the customer to become aware of this situation. > I have no interest in discussing this further. It's upto to FESCo to > make a decision. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgprYdqzPlmiR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
